last chance for nadal to win big against djokovic (great tennis player and one damn drama queen. That little stunt in semis against federer, when down 3-5 in last set and two match points away, eaten everything out of federer, who, as historically documented, hates novak, and for quite legit reasons, i must admit).

i will sure be watching, hope it to be great match, though djokovic has a lot of psychological advantage against nadal dominating him this year on all surfaces.

If one "stunt" as you call it can tick you off so much, maybe you're not that good as you think you are, eh? I mean, tennis is as much a psychological game, as it is physical. And also, I remember Djokovic just celebrating after that return at 40-15 for Roger. And fans were mostly on Roger's side, so he had to boost himself somehow.

thing is, federer and djokovic (especially families, if you don't know, there was a tension between novaks and roger families, because serbs tried to intimidate switz during previous years, plus roger is always contained, and djokovic is pretty extravagant - talking ****, breaking rackets, interrupting the game, as he did this time, while trying to go work the crowd, disrupting roger's moment, grinning as if he had already lost, after being down) go a long time.

and if you think federer is not that great. well, sorry, my friend, even me, being rafa fan, knows that roger is by far greater than both of them combined.

Well, you might be right if we are talking all time, but we are talking at the moment, and present, and in present Roger is falling more and more behind both Rafa and Novak. And when you play game today, that's what matters, not your previous successes you might had. I'm not taking anything away from Roger, he is probably the best ever, but he's not the best one anymore. It might be painful, but, eh, that's life.

And I can't recall any news I heard about any threats to families. But I don't care too much about off the field bullshit anyways.

well, it's only natural that federer would be declining, modern tennis treats age with disrespect. and i can understand his frustration - going down is little fun.

and i really don't care about personal relations betwen them (which, of course doen't mean that they don't care, and it's obvious that federer has little patience for novak, which goes back to the years he was beating him as well) just trying to fuel some fire. (of course there were no threats, lol.)

in this sense i think some of my character traits are close to nole's than both nadal's or federer's

bring it on!

p.s. (being little bitch that i am)

Guybrush wrote: I'm not taking anything away from Roger, he is probably the best ever, but he's not the best one anymore. It might be painful, but, eh, that's life.

No it's not, at least to me. He will be remembered as the best ever probably, even after he retires...until someone else gets results as he did throughout his career. But, he is being remembered as the best because of what he did before...I mean, check how many Grand Slams he won this year, and you will get the answer if he is still the best. If the ATP standings aren't enough.

He is still at the top, which says a lot how great he was, cause even in his age (30) he is still beating the crap out of some young guys, and good players.

you can't be best ever if you are not anymore. it's simple as that. ever means always.

best 'ever' means best for 'all times', it means he is not matched and can't be surpassed. so either he is not best ever, but, let's say, is among the greatest of all times,which means djokovic or anyone else can get on the same level, or he is best ever and this applies to any time, even when he is losing. like michael jordan is best ever, even if someone could punk his ass when he is - what? - 50 now.

you should not mind me so much, i took too many classes in logic with repeated examinations, so it's beaten into my flesh.

I don't mind it, though, that logic is just too bugged for me to buy it.

When you say "best ever", it means the player that had best results and won the most trophies during his career. But, the points is this, when you are still playing, after your prime time, and you are not having results even close as to results you used to have, you can't state that you are best in the game anymore. It's the results from the past that are holding you as the best ever. And he will stay that, until someone gains more trophies. For instance, in some years, Nadal or Novak could win more Grand Slams and other titles and claim that best ever spot. And they are on the rise, while Roger is on a decline, so you can't without any logic say that he is better than them now, when he's not. You have to put aside past results and present results. Past is holding him at the top, cause it will take years for others to beat that, but at the moment, they are beating him. Jordan wasn't at his best when he returned to play for the Wizards, or are you going to tell me that he dominated the league, because he's the greatest ever?

man, you're missing the point, expression 'best ever' means he is 'best ever', period, not 'best ever' at one time and then not 'best ever' anymore. it has nothing to do with his play at, for example, age of 99 or 12. he is 'best ever' means he achieved more than anyone else and this title is valid for any period of time, untill someone passes him (even then, it might be still doubtful if he lost his title, because of other things not just trophies). so, federer is still 'best ever', even if he lost to djokovic. simple as that. there's nothing you can do about it. it's highschool logic.

jordan didn't have to dominate at age 40 or so to remain 'best ever', he had, at some time, achieved something no one has achieved, and thus he is best ever and will remain, regardless of what he is doing now.

that's the only use for the title 'best ever', otherwise it's meaningless to say someone was 'best ever', but not anymore - 'ever' implies ever, through all times. the title is won and technically can't be lost. so, i would rather use title 'one of all time greatest' which is extensive and inclusive (and hence, easier historically achieved without any one dominant place for some trancsendental player) not singular like 'best ever'.

I understand what you are saying, but you are holding too much onto words, and not a true meaning, hence you search for a different title and not "best ever", but "one of all time greatest".

All I'm saying here is that when you talk about all time best, you are looking a whole career, and when I look at the present, I'm not including the past, and that's why he's not best at the moment, which is true, no matter how you wanna twist the words. The level of play is what I look now, and he's trophies that are giving him the best ever title are from days gone.

Anyway, let's look it like this...can you say that Federer is now better than Djokovic and Nadal? Anyone with sane mind will tell you that he is not. But they will still consider him if not the best ever, than one of the greatest...because of the past. Best ever, because of time, doesn't necessarily have to include players' whole career. You don't have to be the best throughout your whole life to be called "best ever". It's that part when you're on your top, and when you achieve the most that counts.

I don't see what I'm actually arguing about here, but the title...cause you just wanna change it to "one of the greatest". I don't care about the words, I think my point is pretty clear.

I'll just try to put it like this, one more time. Best ever indeed means that he is best ever...but best ever doesn't tell you details about his form and progress. being worse now, than he was 4 years ago, doesn't take away his "best ever" title, just show that he's not invulnerable. If someone is better than him at one point, doesn't prove that they are better than him overall, and there's no need to remove his "best ever" title. Djokovic and Nadal have years and years to go to challenge him for that, but now, they are playing better than him. I don't know what you want me to say. That because he is the best ever, there can't be anyone who's better than him now? Or you simply want me to take back the words about calling him the best?

I think that was clear...the difference is in time, because you need consistency throughout the years to be the best ever, and not just few good years. Federer did that, these still haven't, and they can't be thrown into that mix to challenge Roger for that. But, you can argue that Sampras was better, someone will say that he was.

well, you seem to get it right. 'best ever' is a title that's earned, and it is valid for any time whatsoever. however, my point was that he cannot be 'best ever', but not anymore. that was your statement. if you don't see, how that statement is wrong, nothing i can do about (it). he is 'best ever', not playing his best tennis at this point in his carrer. does he become not 'best ever'? no. so how can he be (no longer) not 'best ever' anymore?

this is logical fallacy, period. and you seem to argue well against it (contradictory thought, expressed in your statement).

what you need to do is simply fix the statement - 'he is best ever (if you believe it), but now not playing his best tennis (which does not contradict the statement, that he is 'best ever')'.

Oh, so you stuck to that one sentence that I wrote like that, lol. I didn't even saw it that I wrote it like that, even when you quoted it.

All I mean is that he is best ever, just that he is not playing like that anymore. I mean, we just need to separate results, from game/form. His results give him the title of best ever, but his form at the moment doesn't show that. That's all I wanted to say.